By Christine Miller and Susan Bassi
A Kentucky father has scored a rare and resounding victory in the state Court of Appeals after a family court judge was found to have committed a “substantial miscarriage of justice” in a high-stakes custody battle. The appellate court’s rebuke, now viral on social media, has cast a harsh spotlight on the workings of American family courts and the fundamental rights at stake for parents.
The controversy centers on Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Lauren Ogden, who was ordered by the Kentucky Court of Appeals to halt her actions in the custody case of Anthony John De Almeida and Destiny Smith. The appellate court granted De Almeida emergency relief, finding that Judge Ogden violated his due process rights by stripping him of sole custody of his newborn child during a hearing he was neither notified of nor present for.
The appellate court’s rebuke, now viral on social media, has cast a harsh spotlight on the workings of American family courts and the fundamental rights at stake for parents.
The custody saga began in August 2024, when both parents signed an agreement granting De Almeida, the father, sole custody—an arrangement in which Smith explicitly waived further notice and her rights to visitation. But on October 7, 2024, Smith and the child’s paternal grandmother appeared in court without De Almeida. Despite De Almeida’s attorney participating by phone and unable to hear or challenge testimony, Judge Ogden proceeded, prompting the appellate court’s intervention to prevent “immediate and irreparable harm.”
On October 8, Judge Ogden vacated the custody agreement, claiming it was “signed in error,” a reversal from her previous acknowledgment of its validity. She ordered De Almeida to return the child to Kentucky, which he did. Days later, on October 14, Judge Ogden denied De Almeida’s motions and, without hearing from him or his witnesses, ordered the child removed from his care and given to Smith, despite the absence of any motion from the mother to modify custody or evidence about the child’s best interests.
Courtroom video shows the moment Judge Ogden’s order stripped a father of custody of his infant child.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals condemned these actions, emphasizing that custody cannot be changed without proper notice or a hearing, and that De Almeida “was never given adequate notice that custody of the child was at issue” nor “given the opportunity to be heard.” The appellate court vacated Judge Ogden’s orders and restored De Almeida’s sole custody, calling the lower court’s conduct a “substantial miscarriage of justice.”
In its November 4, 2024, order, the appellate court directed that the child be returned to De Almeida by November 6. However, the child was not returned on time. Instead, the paternal grandmother allegedly lured De Almeida to a different courthouse to pursue last-minute legal maneuvers, which were denied. The child was finally exchanged under sheriff’s supervision, but questions remain about the mother’s possession of the child immediately after the courtroom handover. The grandmother, notably, has no legal standing in the case.
The case remained quiet until April 2025, when Smith’s legal team filed a motion to set aside the original custody decree, alleging fraud and other grounds. De Almeida’s counsel responded by seeking Judge Ogden’s recusal, citing alleged judicial bias, misconduct, favoritism, and a conflict of interest-specifically, that Judge Ogden’s own divorce attorney now represents Smith. The status of that representation is unclear, as Judge Ogden’s divorce case is sealed.
The case has attracted widespread attention from legal professionals and watchdogs, with courtroom footage garnering over a million views on Tik Tok and sparking thousands of online comments about judicial conduct. De Almeida’s attorney included several of these public comments in the recusal motion.
As of April 25, 2025, Judge Ogden has indicated she will deny the recusal request. Under local rules, either party may request a hearing to contest this pre-ruling, scheduled for April 28, 2025, in Jefferson County. The public can observe the proceedings via Zoom.
This case underscores the critical importance of due process and transparency in family court, raising urgent questions about judicial impartiality and the safeguards meant to protect parents and children alike.
Christine Miller is a Kentucky family law attorney and social media influencer advocating for change in America’s family courts. Contact Christine via TikTok or email. Susan Bassi is an investigative journalist reporting on the courts in California for the Davis Vanguard.
